[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2020-July-18, 15:13, said:

Only tournaments have a TD. Matches generally don't. And everyone I have asked think that confirming every play is a waste of time. Those that use it confirm without even looking at the bid or play.

Why do you care so much what other people do?

[johnu]

 pescetom, on 2020-July-17, 06:07, said:

How simple do you want the “Confirm” mechanism to be? Even the current one, ie double-clicking, is a bit error-prone.

IMHO, accidentally double clicking is ridiculously easy to do, so much so that it is probably the worst "confirm" option I can think of right now. Especially if your internet connection is a little flaky, or there are background operations going on that are taking CPU cycles away from BBO.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2020-July-19, 08:13, said:

Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction of law.

The person who sets up the table is the designated director as far as the EBU is concerned, and if you "call director" it calls that person, who will usually be a member of your team.

[barmar]

The problem with a confirmation mechanism on something you do frequently is that you'll just get in the habit of always confirming, without actually reviewing what you did. So the confirmation feature loses its benefit. This is particularly true if it's easy to confirm, e.g. by just clicking again.

A counterexample is the extra confirmation required when playing robot bridge, and you use the Claim button that turns into "Concede" when you're not on lead. This requires you to move the mouse precisely to the checkbox, not just a simple second click. And claiming isn't something you do as often as bidding and playing, so you don't get into a rhythm.

In one of the VCs I play in, the TD's standard announcements at the beginning of the game includes a reminder that undos aren't allowed and people should enable confirmations. I doubt many of the players do it, but it serves as a CYA for the TD -- if a player misclicks, he can point out the warning and say it's the player's fault for not heeding the advice.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2020-July-19, 19:58, said:

The problem with a confirmation mechanism on something you do frequently is that you'll just get in the habit of always confirming, without actually reviewing what you did. So the confirmation feature loses its benefit. This is particularly true if it's easy to confirm, e.g. by just clicking again.

A counterexample is the extra confirmation required when playing robot bridge, and you use the Claim button that turns into "Concede" when you're not on lead. This requires you to move the mouse precisely to the checkbox, not just a simple second click. And claiming isn't something you do as often as bidding and playing, so you don't get into a rhythm.

In one of the VCs I play in, the TD's standard announcements at the beginning of the game includes a reminder that undos aren't allowed and people should enable confirmations. I doubt many of the players do it, but it serves as a CYA for the TD -- if a player misclicks, he can point out the warning and say it's the player's fault for not heeding the advice.

I am quite happy with "no undos" in the bidding or play. But our committee wanted them fearing that less dextrous people would not want to play online.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2020-July-17, 19:52, said:

In the absence of a stated line the question is not "what line do we feel declarer intended?" but "Is there a normal line that fails?" Also that determination is to be made by reason, not feeling.

ChCh argued that in playing the five of spades at trick one before calling the director, MM lost any right to redress for her side.

[pescetom]

an admin said:

Sorry, pescetom, I have mistakenly edited your post instead of replying to it. So I had better address your other point.

How simple do you want the “Confirm” mechanism to be? Even the current one, ie double-clicking, is a bit error-prone.

Very simple, so that confirmation takes almost no time and is not itself difficult or error-prone (which somewhat defeats the point).
Ideally, clicking on a (sufficient) card in the bidding box should visually preselect that card (say it pops up) and then clicking on the bidding tray (or the table if you want to keep things simple) would confirm selection, moving the card to the bidding area (tray or table).
Similarly for card play, visually preselect the card in hand and then click on the table to play it.

[KingCovert]

 blackshoe, on 2020-July-17, 19:52, said:

In the absence of a stated line the question is not "what line do we feel declarer intended?" but "Is there a normal line that fails?" Also that determination is to be made by reason, not feeling.

 lamford, on 2020-July-20, 06:27, said:

ChCh argued that in playing the five of spades at trick one before calling the director, MM lost any right to redress for her side.

I guess I didn't really articulate what I was saying all that well, or we've sort of latched onto (what I'd consider) irrelevant word selection.

Quote

ACBL LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION

A. General Objective
In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows.

B. Clarification Statement Repeated

1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.

2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).

Obviously the law may deviate somewhat in the EBU, but, I imagine it's much the same. BBO claim mechanics are perverse. They're made that way to facilitate the gameplay when random people online don't agree and there is no director to adjudicate, think of a casual game on the platform. But, actual laws require that if the claim is contested, declarer needs to state their line of play.

I fail to see how declarer can defend claiming 13 tricks, and choosing to lose trick #1. The undo is irrelevant in my mind, because, it happened after a failure surrounding claim mechanics. The result should have been adjudicated to be 6NT-1, and would have been so, if not for the perversion of the process by BBO. This action therefore would have terminated the hand, thus making the following actions irrelevant. Every line that starts with the A♠ results in declarer losing at least 2 tricks.

You might say that declarer failed to declare a line of play in the first place, but, given the evidence, declarer could not reasonably have declared a successful line of play.

[lamford]

 KingCovert, on 2020-July-20, 11:16, said:

I fail to see how declarer can defend claiming 13 tricks, and choosing to lose trick #1. The undo is irrelevant in my mind, because, it happened after a failure surrounding claim mechanics. The result should have been adjudicated to be 6NT-1, and would have been so, if not for the perversion of the process by BBO. This action therefore would have terminated the hand, thus making the following actions irrelevant. Every line that starts with the A♠ results in declarer losing at least 2 tricks.

But the declarer did not state that he was intending to play the ace of spades. The relevant law is:
68D2 Play is suspended <snip>
(b) upon the request of the non-claiming or non-conceding side, play may continue subject to the following:
(i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then proceeds as in (a) above.
(ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand
So, if MM wanted a suspension she should not have followed to trick one, and if RR wanted suspension he should have called the TD certainly before playing to trick two. The fact that there is no TD present makes it awkward of course. If it was board 1 of a 24 board match, then the match would have to be abandoned until a TD could be found. But I agree the BBO process is perverse, and overrides the Laws in that a rejected claim just leads to the non-claimer playing on.

[KingCovert]

 lamford, on 2020-July-20, 11:54, said:

But the declarer did not state that he was intending to play the ace of spades. The relevant law is:
68D2 Play is suspended <snip>
(b) upon the request of the non-claiming or non-conceding side, play may continue subject to the following:
(i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then proceeds as in (a) above.
(ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand
So, if MM wanted a suspension she should not have followed to trick one, and if RR wanted suspension he should have called the TD certainly before playing to trick two. The fact that there is no TD present makes it awkward of course. If it was board 1 of a 24 board match, then the match would have to be abandoned until a TD could be found. But I agree the BBO process is perverse, and overrides the Laws in that a rejected claim just leads to the non-claimer playing on.

Quote

D. Suspension of Play
After any claim or concession, play is suspended.
1. If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies.
2. If it is doubted by any player (dummy included); either

(a) the Director may immediately be summoned and no action should be taken pending his arrival, Law 70 applies; or
(b) upon the request of the non-claiming or non-conceding side, play may continue subject to the following:

(i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then proceeds as in (a) above.
(ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand.

I don't think SB concurs that play should continue. Thus, all four players don't concur. So, I'd expect that Law 70 therefore applies. (I guess you did quote all the segments of the law that I thought relevent lol... whoops.... well hopefully the formatting helps.)

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2020-July-20, 06:23, said:

I am quite happy with "no undos" in the bidding or play. But our committee wanted them fearing that less dextrous people would not want to play online.

Undos in the play is perverse, since it contravenes the Laws.

 pescetom, on 2020-July-20, 07:00, said:

Very simple, so that confirmation takes almost no time and is not itself difficult or error-prone (which somewhat defeats the point).
Ideally, clicking on a (sufficient) card in the bidding box should visually preselect that card (say it pops up) and then clicking on the bidding tray (or the table if you want to keep things simple) would confirm selection, moving the card to the bidding area (tray or table).
Similarly for card play, visually preselect the card in hand and then click on the table to play it.

The “confirm” mechanism in the bidding is pretty much as you describe.

 KingCovert, on 2020-July-20, 11:16, said:

Obviously the law may deviate somewhat in the EBU

No, that would be impossible. However, the EBU have issued a set of online regulations that say it is normal to play on. I would not play on if there were a director available, but in matches there is no director.

Quote

But, actual laws require that if the claim is contested, declarer needs to state their line of play.

This is not what the Law says.

 KingCovert, on 2020-July-20, 12:16, said:

I don't think SB concurs that play should continue. Thus, all four players don't concur. So, I'd expect that Law 70 therefore applies.

I wish it did, but when there is no director, there is no other option. The drafters of the EBU Sky Blue book made a practical choice.

[KingCovert]

 Vampyr, on 2020-July-20, 14:04, said:

This is not what the Law says.

Perhaps you mean that it doesn't apply here, but, if you mean that it isn't required, you're simply wrong.

Quote

LAW 68C - Clarification Required
A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played. The player making the claim or concession faces his hand

LAW 70 said:

LAW 70 CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION
A. General Objective

In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows.

B. Clarification Statement Repeated

1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.
2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).
3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

 Vampyr, on 2020-July-20, 14:04, said:

I wish it did, but when there is no director, there is no other option. The drafters of the EBU Sky Blue book made a practical choice.

As for whether it applies here, it seems silly that the absence of a director should allow for a result that can only come from further perverse violations of the rules. LAW 70A is pretty clear that the director is supposed to adjudicate results as equitably as possible, but, against the claimer if necessary. There may well be no director at the table, but, the review board when given all the information can surely determine what the correct ruling would have been if there were in fact a director.

Perhaps that's the way it is, but, if so, that's incredibly stupid.

[pescetom]

I would just add that since lockdown started I have directed over a hundred competitive games online, and not once was I called because of a claim (except for the odd case where the clock struck when a claim was pending). This suggests that the BBO claim mechanism is effective and perceived as fair by the players, whatever we lawmongers may think of it. Online bridge law has other much bigger problems IMO.

[lamford]

 pescetom, on 2020-July-20, 14:50, said:

I would just add that since lockdown started I have directed over a hundred competitive games online, and not once was I called because of a claim (except for the odd case where the clock struck when a claim was pending). This suggests that the BBO claim mechanism is effective and perceived as fair by the players, whatever we lawmongers may think of it. Online bridge law has other much bigger problems IMO.

I actually think the BBO claim procedure is much better than the live play claim procedure. The non-claimers can defend double dummy and they can reject the claim if they think there is any line that might be chosen. There is a downside that a contested claim "wakes up" declarer who then starts looking for the trap, but that is minor.

Compared with the ability to self-kibitz and the ability to cheat with What's App, any problem with the claim procedure is irrelevant.

[KingCovert]

 lamford, on 2020-July-20, 15:19, said:

I actually think the BBO claim procedure is much better than the live play claim procedure. The non-claimers can defend double dummy and they can reject the claim if they think there is any line that might be chosen. There is a downside that a contested claim "wakes up" declarer who then starts looking for the trap, but that is minor.

Compared with the ability to self-kibitz and the ability to cheat with What's App, any problem with the claim procedure is irrelevant.

I don't think anyone would ever argue that issues like this are larger problems than say the ability to blatantly cheat. There are many voice call solutions that allow for screen-sharing that would easily facilitate cheating, and I don't think there is any practical way to prevent that.

But, I do think that the culture of claiming without a required stated line of play can lead to situations like this where it now becomes very difficult if not impossible to prevent some unethical behaviour. I think many are simply willing to live with it in order to save time on claims, and that's fair, and one isn't really going to be able to force players to change their behaviour. But, in an instance like this, where there is sufficient evidence to say that this is an abuse of the way that claims work on BBO, I think it's possible to rectify the abuse by adhering to the actual laws on claims as opposed to the developed culture of BBO. It seems strange to me that BBO culture takes precedence over the laws when a ruling body makes an actual ruling (which it makes based on the laws).

I've probably beaten all horses into extinction at this point on this topic, but, it is a somewhat interesting topic. Sorry!

[Gerardo]

BBO allows you to enter a claim statement. It is rarely done.

Where there is a Director, it can be called on contested claims.

If you have matches without a Director, and have issues with this, maybe you can have a Director.

[lamford]

 Gerardo, on 2020-July-20, 16:17, said:

BBO allows you to enter a claim statement. It is rarely done.

Where there is a Director, it can be called on contested claims.

If you have matches without a Director, and have issues with this, maybe you can have a Director.

Gordontd: "There are no online TDs assigned to teams matches and clicking on the TD button will usually just send a message to the player who set the match up."

The excellent EBU Lockdown League has over 1000 matches in the season in 11 divisions. For an online club session the cost of a TD is maybe £40 or $50. A match might be less, but the cost is not justified. For every reason, online play can never be "serious bridge", and I think any ruling just has to be agreed between the two captains at the time. Good luck to SB and ChCh the two captains here in agreeing on anything!

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2020-July-19, 16:57, said:

The person who sets up the table is the designated director as far as the EBU is concerned

Is that in the sky blue book?

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2020-July-20, 20:32, said:

Is that in the sky blue book?

No, it is gordontd's interpretation of how the BBO "call director" system operates. One can send a BBO message to an EBU director, but that just gets delivered as mail.

The Sky Blue Book says: To call the TD on BBO, there is a menu option ‘Call TD’. The location of the menu with the ‘Call TD’ option depends on the version of the BBO interface.

This I did in a recent match, and nothing happened. Then I found several messages from myself to myself in my messages when I looked the next day.

So, the director is (effectively) the person who set up the table except where the event has an appointed director.

[Gerardo]

 lamford, on 2020-July-20, 17:54, said:

Gordontd: "There are no online TDs assigned to teams matches and clicking on the TD button will usually just send a message to the player who set the match up."

The excellent EBU Lockdown League has over 1000 matches in the season in 11 divisions. For an online club session the cost of a TD is maybe £40 or $50. A match might be less, but the cost is not justified. For every reason, online play can never be "serious bridge", and I think any ruling just has to be agreed between the two captains at the time. Good luck to SB and ChCh the two captains here in agreeing on anything!

A TD (or several) can be added to a match in the same way they can be added to a tourney.

Indeed, I'd expect much fewer calls from a match than from a tourney (less people, no time restrictions).

A single TD might take care of several/many matches. Would be possiblt to have a pool of TDs to ensure at least one in available when a match is run.

First line might be a player in the same event, in an different division, provided they have TD credentials.

On disagreements with an eventual ruling, a senior TD may be consulted (as I understand is the practice for these type of matches IRL, what is the cost there?).

An issue on BBO is that there are 20 minutes after the match is over as adjustment period, before BBO records are fixed. And while would be good to rely on them, you don't need to if you keep track of adjustments not reflected in BBO results.

Does the League have a fee? If so, seems fair to me to give TDs a compensation. It could be per attended call.